| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/27/2003 03:11:49 PM · #1 |
I was taking wedding photos with my newly acquired (albeit used) Olympus E-10. Many of my photos were taken outside in late afternoon with the flash. I didn't remove the UV filter. Did this alter the photos quality? Should I have removed it? I'm new to this site, and am excited about getting involved.
|
|
|
|
10/27/2003 04:20:00 PM · #2 |
There is a lot of debate here occasionally about UV filters. The first question you should ask yourself is why did you have the UV filter on to begin with? If you require that filter for some reason, then use it.
I prefer to not have any extra glass on the end of my lens that is not required.
|
|
|
|
10/27/2003 04:36:18 PM · #3 |
Thanks for your prompt reply. I wasn't really aware that I had left the UV filter on the lens. Since I took every picture with it on, I don't know how they would have come out if I had taken it off. Also, I used the flash that pops up on the camera, and not a hotshoe flash. I had one, but am not quite familiar with how I should shoot it...with Full Auto camera setting, or go to 1/60 @ 5.6 like a MF camera. Any suggestions? Also, even though I took the time for the AF to lock onto the subject, some still came out slightly blurred. Not good enough for printing.
An amateur looking for a stake in the photography claim!
|
|
|
|
10/27/2003 04:46:59 PM · #4 |
I'm no authority on flash photography. I avoid the flash for the most part. I'm gonna be learning it soon tho. I don't know how the E-10 meters for flash shots, but I think it uses the E-TTL metering like most others do, so you should be OK with it. The only filter I have ever used with indoor flash photos is a warming filter. It helps reduce the harshness of the light quite a bit in some cases.
Anyway... the E-TTL metering should work fine. The camera fires a very brief 'pre-flash' before it fires the main flash. The camera meters this pre-flash and adjustst the intensity of the main flash for a correct exposure on your subject in focus. It takes a lot of the guesswork out of flash photography.
|
|
|
|
10/27/2003 05:10:47 PM · #5 |
| I always keep my UV filter on my camera.... I cant tell the diffrence with it on or off!! |
|
|
|
10/27/2003 07:29:17 PM · #6 |
A good quality muti-coated UV filter should not do TOO much to degrade image quality. But there will be some difference, albeit slight. A poor quality filter could have a significant effect.
I do not use a filter most of the time, preferring to get everything I can get out of the optics. I think a lens hood is great protection, and provides a POSITIVE effect on image quality (increased contrast & flare reduction).
I do use a UV filter when I anticipate conditions that I don't want to expose my front element to, e.g. possible splashes, flying grit (came in very handy shooting the warbirds up close at AirVenture this Summer...)
|
|
|
|
10/28/2003 09:19:10 AM · #7 |
Many photographers mount UV filters on their lenses as an additional security measure against scratches. Replacing a damaged UV filter is vastly less expensive than replacing a lense. Some costing hundreds or thousands of dollars.
Have had UV filters mounted on all my Nikkors for many years. Have never removed them. But buy good filters.
Remember, there is a reason why the pro's do what they do. And it is not because they have alot of money. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/24/2024 03:13:50 AM EDT.
